When Jian Feng’s baby daughter was born, he wasn’t just disappointed that the baby didn’t resemble her beautiful mother, he was “horrified” by how “ugly” he found the little girl to be.
Feng was so horrified, he convinced himself there was no way he could be the child’s father–his wife must have had sex with a hideously ugly man to have created such an unattractive offspring.
Feng (a resident of Northern China) took his wife to court to prove that the baby was not his, but was surprised when the DNA test confirmed he was indeed the little girl’s father.
At that point, his wife admitted that she had undergone plastic surgery to beautify her face before she met her husband. The woman’s numerous surgeries cost her over $100,000 and changed her from a person Feng would never have considered marriageable into the beautiful woman he says he fell in love with.
“I married my wife out of love, but as soon as we had our first daughter, we began having marital issues. Our daughter was incredibly ugly, to the point where it horrified me,” he told the judge.
Jian insisted that he had been tricked by his wife and the judge agreed, granting him a divorce, and ordering his ex-wife to pay Feng $120,000 restitution for his troubles.
How would you have ruled in this case?
Although I do agree Feng was “tricked” by his wife into believing she was a so-called natural beauty, for him to be horrified at the sight of his own child (who is actually pretty cute) speaks volumes about him. His ex-wife should file a counter suit for being tricked into believing she married a human being.
If I were the judge in this case, I would have agreed with him in open court about one thing: His wife did have sex with a hideously ugly man–her husband. He’s the only ugly person in this sad story.
There is no surgery available for that.
I posted last September about Florida Governor (R) Rick Scott who pushed a bill through the Florida Legislature which required all welfare recipients to be drug tested. He gained Republican support for the proposed law by insisting that poor people on welfare are using tax payers to fund their drug use.
Scott is a conservative Republican billionaire who used $73 million of his own money and the support of the Tea Party to win his governorship.
The scandal here is that there was a clear conflict of interest for Scott, in that he is co-founder of a chain of drug testing clinics and he would benefit financially from the law. And, when 98 percent of the welfare recipients passed the test at a cost of $178 million to tax payers, there was no legislative move to end the testing.
In October, 2011, U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven issued an injunction halting the drug testing, finding that a welfare applicant represented by the ACLU who challenged the law would likely win his case on constitutional grounds.
So what does Scott do? No longer profiting from poor folks, he switches his focus to working class government employees by issuing an executive order mandating drug testing for all 85,000 of them.
U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro ruled on Wednesday that suspicionless drug testing for state workers violated the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable search and seizure.
Scott said he would appeal the decision.
Of course, his appeal will be paid for by the very taxpayers whose constitutional rights he wants to trample.
So. Friggin. Absurd.
Why has this guy not been recalled?
SEPTEMBER 2011 STORY:
Florida Governor Rick Scott was so sure people on welfare use drugs at a higher rate than the general population, he insisted anyone receiving help from the Department of Children and Families be tested.
Under the sponsorship of Republican state Senator Steve Oelrich, a bill was presented to the Florida Legislature that Oelrich said was, “all about trying to break the cycle of drug dependency and using taxpayer dollars to buy illegal drugs.” The bill passed over objections from Democrats.
In July, 2011, the state began implementing the policy that requires all applicants for temporary cash assistance to pass four drug tests per year, which the applicant must pay for, before any funds can be disbursed to them. If the applicant tests negative for drugs, they are reimbursed for the test. If the result is positive, they are barred from the program.
The results: 98% passed.
The cost to the State of Florida: $178 million annually.
OK, so Rick Scott appears to have been publicly embarrassed after supporting a failed policy that is estimated to cost $5 for every $1 it saves. But, there’s more to the story.
This is the same Rick Scott that was forced out of his CEO position at health care giant Columbia/HCA just before the company admitted to 14 felonies and agreed to pay the federal government over $600 million in welfare fraud restitution. This is the same Rick Scott who somehow (his friendship with George W. Bush, perhaps?) avoided any criminal prosecution in the federal indictment against Columbia/HCA, a company Scott co-founded and led. This is the same Rick Scott who then co-founded Solantic, a chain of urgent care centers that provide drug testing for the workforce.
In his support of the drug testing bill Scott said it is “unfair for Florida taxpayers to subsidize drug addiction.” Apparently it is not unfair for them to subsidize shady politicians and their business partners.
Scott is a conservative Republican billionaire who used $73 million of his own money and the support of the tea party to win his governorship.
Set a timer and lie back on the couch for eighteen minutes and you will realize what an eternity that would be if someone held you down for that long while ripping your face apart with their teeth.
Equally, if not more horrific, is the thought of being that individual who spent eighteen of the last few minutes of his earthly life chewing the lips, nose, cheeks, forehead and eyeball off of another human being’s face.
Bad things happen in this world that are seemingly inexplicable. They happen a lot. But for some reason, this bad thing has really freaked me out.
I’m thinking that if even one of Rudy Eugene’s family, friends, co-workers or acquaintances said something like, “Yeah, we really saw this coming,” or “He was always a nutcase,” it wouldn’t make this story any easier to know about, but it would at least make it fit somewhere in that mental box that holds my ideas about how unfathomable evil comes alive in a person.
I don’t know where to put this.
Police at the scene said they suspected “bath salts” (a hallucinogenic designer drug that can result in erratic and violent behavior) was the cause of Eugene’s sudden cannibalistic rage. But, those closest to him said he only occasionally smoked marijuana and was not known to indulge in any hard drugs of any kind. Friends say Eugene felt guilty about his marijuana use and had been asking God for the strength to quit.
And, speaking of the Lord, the last time Eugene’s girlfriend saw her man, he was on his way out of the house holding a Bible in his hand.
Yovanka Bryant told reporters she was not aware of any mental illnesses her boyfriend may have had and said she only saw him smoke marijuana once. Although his ex-wife Jenny Ductant says she ended their brief marriage in 2007 due to increased violence from Eugene, and police had to intervene when he verbally threatened his mother in 2004, Bryant’s reputation among friends, family and coworkers is that he was a “really nice guy.” His girlfriend says she “felt safe” with him. She insisted he was trying to grow closer to God and said that they watched a Bible ministry television show in the mornings and read the Bible and the Koran together.
He had attended a Bible study with his friend Bobby Cherry less than 48 hours before the incident:
“His last words to me were that he wanted to get his life right and that he wanted to get closer to God. And he wanted to stop smoking pot. That’s it…It had to be some sort of drug that somebody must have slipped on him, because Rudy wouldn’t so much as pop a Tylenol pill.”
Eugene left his girlfriend’s house in the early morning hours on the last day of his life, but not before planting a kiss on her lips and saying, “I love you.”
An hour after he left, he called her cell phone. “He called me and told me his car broke down. He said, ‘I’ll be home, but I’m going to be a little late.’ Then he said, ‘I’m going to call you right back.’”
He never did.
What on earth happened in the next few hours that would cause this man to brutally attack 65-year-old Ronald Poppo, leaving the homeless man clinging to life with 75% of his face missing?
I’m hoping the police were right. I’m hoping they do find evidence of “bath salts” in Eugene’s system. I’m hoping his death and Ronald Poppos’ tragic injuries might serve as a warning to those who think there is anything “recreational” about messing around with synthetic drugs. I’m hoping that there’s a reasonable explanation why someone whom family members describe as “happy,” “kind,” “generous,” “spiritual” and “loving,” would suddenly behave like a vicious, ravenous animal.
I need a box to put this incident in that doesn’t leave me wondering if the human beings in proximity to me and my family–human beings whom I depend on to remain relatively sane, normal and predictable–are capable of this kind of sudden, unforseen and inexplicable evil.
Until then, I’ll be giving a lot of folks that suspicious side eye.
Note: Experts on facial reconstruction say Ronald Poppo faces a lengthy recovery, including months of treatment to rebuild his features. He remains hospitalized. A fund has been set up in his name by the Jackson Memorial Foundation.
Director Lee Daniels (Precious) is receiving strong criticism for his latest film, “The Paperboy,” which was mostly panned at the Cannes Film Festival this year and called “outrageous,” “unintentionally funny” and “campy.”
However, at least one fan of the film thought its leading lady, Nicole Kidman, kicked some thespian a-double-s in her raw portrayal of a “white trash slut.”
Michelle Rodriguez told Vulture.com that she believes Kidman should be nominated for an Oscar for her work in The Paperboy, but likely won’t because she’s white. Speaking about a specific scene in the film where Kidman urinates on Zac Efron and orgasms, the “Lost” actress said:
“I f—g loved it. One of my friends said, ‘She’s going to get nominated for an Oscar for that.’ I was like, ‘Nah, man. She’s not black!’ I laugh, but it’s also very sad. It makes me want to cry. But I really believe. You have to be trashy and black to get nominated. You can’t just be trashy.”
You have to be trashy and black to get an Oscar nomination?
This is bothering me on so many levels. Not because a non-black actor doesn’t have the right to her view on how Oscar decisions are made or her opinions about how black actors get noticed by the Academy…
I’m bothered because despite the certainty with which she proclaimed her belief,” she’s wrong…
Off the top of my head I can think of several “white trash” roles that have garnered Academy nominations, among them, Charlize Theron for “Monster” (2003), Melissa Leo for “Frozen River” (2008), Jennifer Lawrence for “Winter’s Bone” (2010), and Rooney Mara for “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” (2011). With a little research I found Sharon Stone, Elizabeth Shue, Meryl Streep, Glenn Close, Kathy Bates, Anjelica Huston… the list goes on and on of white Oscar nominees who’ve played whores, alcoholics, stalkers, abused girlfriends, etc.. And, that list doesn’t even include the best supporting nominees or the countless white men who’ve acted lowdown, dirty, and/or freaky on the big screen.
Given the reality that the Academy actually has no problem including white people in “trashy” roles on their list to receive what is widely recognized as the highest thespian award on earth, I’m wondering if what Michelle was alluding to is the widely-held perception that black actors are more likely to be honored for work in which they play a “trashy” character.
Also not correct.
I’ll admit that back in 2001 I was among those who hated the fact that Denzel and Halle both won Oscars playing characters who scraped the bottom of the morality barrel. But, as much as I have little confidence in the Academy’s ability to recognize the “best” onscreen performances (of any ethnicity), regarding this particular issue of “required trashiness” for black actors, it should be noted that historically, the ratio of black nominees in “trashy” roles to those playing heroes (or just regular folks) is actually quite low.
Prior to the year 2000, of the 16 Academy nominations for lead actor and actress, only Laurence Fishburne’s portrayal of abusive husband Ike Turner in the film “What’s Love Got To Do With It” could be categorized as “trashy.”
Here is a list of the best (black) actor/actress in a leading role nominations for the last ten years:
||President of South Africa
||The Last King of Scotland
||The Pursuit of Happyness
||Hustle & Flow
||Pimp / Rapper
||Executed Prisoner’s Widow
Here are the supporting actor/actress nominees:
|| *WON OSCAR*
||Hostage Cab Driver
||Million Dollar Baby
|| *WON OSCAR*
||Neighbor w/ AIDS
||Corrupt Jail Matron
I’m DEFINITELY not suggesting that the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences has been generous, fair or impartial to black actors over the years, but numerically speaking, Oscar nominations for “anti-hero” roles do not outnumber morally neutral or heroic roles.
Michelle Rodriguez really needs to check her stereotypes and her facts before she stands on the backs of black actors to defend a white actress’s “right” to be nominated by the Academy for a “trashy” role.
On “The Island,” physics and facts may have been easily contorted and controlled, but this ain’t “Lost,” Michelle, and in the real world “really believing” something that has no basis in fact doesn’t make it true
New York Post writer Phil Mushnick is apparently comfortable with talented “niggers” chasing a basketball around for his entertainment —and his kids can listen to their music— but when a wealthy black man has the gall to actually OWN a NBA team franchise and express an owner’s prerogative to make branding decisions, well that just sends Phil over the deep end.
With the Nets recent move from New Jersey to Brooklyn, fans and foes expected to see major changes in the franchise, including new team colors, which were previously red, white and blue. The team now wears black and white. Mushnick wrote,
“As long as the Nets are allowing Jay-Z to call their marketing shots — what a shock that he chose black and white as the new team colors to stress, as the Nets explained, their new “urban” home — why not have him apply the full Jay-Z treatment? Why the Brooklyn Nets when they can be the New York N – – – – – s? The cheerleaders could be the Brooklyn B – – – hes or Hoes. Team logo? A 9 mm with hollow-tip shell casings strewn beneath. Wanna be Jay-Z hip? Then go all the way!”
The Brooklyn Bitches or Hoes? Really, Phil? Mushnick is adamant that his rant was not in any way racist. He told Village Voice journalist James King,
“I don’t call black men niggas; my kids never heard the word until folks such as Jay-Z came along. I’d suggest you talk to him about it.”
This kind of feigned innocence is nothing new, but Phil’s brand of bold line-crossing seems to be more prevalent than ever in “post-racial” America where our President is referred to as a nigga, nigger, tar baby, and countless other disparaging terms that have undeniably racist intent.
I don’t know why Phil’s so offended by the choice of black and white for the Nets anyway. Why can’t black and white represent something positive like opposites uniting to create magic?
Ebony and ivory live together in perfect harmony side by side on my piano key board, so Phil…
…why can’t we?
“It had occurred to Pecola some time ago that if her eyes, those eyes that held the pictures, and knew the sights — if those eyes of hers were different, that is to say, beautiful, she herself would be different.” –Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye
An inventor in California says he has developed a new 20-second laser procedure that will safely turn brown eyes blue…for around $5,000.
Gregg Homer, founder of Stroma Medical in Laguna Beach, Calif., says the color switch is possible because all brown-eyed people have blue-looking orbs under the layer of dark pigment that covers the iris.
Homer has conducted preliminary testing of the irreversible procedure on a dozen volunteers in Mexico, and plans to test the full procedure in both eyes of volunteers in about a year.
Stroma will first market the treatment outside the U.S. — probably Mexico, Canada and Europe. Homer said he has “no doubt” he’ll get FDA approval in the U.S. in about three years.
“People like the depth of a light eye,” says Homer. “Eyes are the windows to the soul, and a light eye is like an open window.”
Not so fast, Homer.
This story reminds me of one I posted back in August about a “Pupil of the Eye” conference Bahá’is held in Los Angeles to celebrate the spiritual contributions of people of African descent:
“Bahá’is believe in the oneness of the human family, but discourage the kind of “color blindness” that leads to the glossing over of critical issues those committed to racial unity must be willing to address.
The Baha’i writings metaphorically compare black believers to the “pupil of the eye surrounded by the white,” explaining, “In this black pupil is seen the reflection of that which is before it, and through it the light of the spirit shineth forth.”
Young people today are already bombarded with media messages that tell them they are not perfect and beautiful exactly the way they were created. Breast implants. Butt injections. Skin lightening. Permanent eye color switch?
Have mercy. It seems Pecola Breedlove’s misguided survival strategy may soon become all the rage.